Correlation between self-perceived cognitive problems and objective cognitive impairment in non-CNS cancer patients in a resource-constrained health setting in South Africa
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aim: Cognitive complaints are frequent among cancer patients. These issues can significantly affect the patient’s quality of life and are linked to a higher risk of developing dementia. However, their occurrence does not consistently correlate with measurable objective cognitive dysfunction, which contributes to their negligence in oncological care. Thus, this study aimed to examine the relationship between subjective and objective measures of cognitive function in patients without CNS involvement in a developing context. Methods: A cross-sectional study was conducted with 50 patients aged 18 and above shortly after diagnosis of non-CNS cancer but before any systematic treatment at a tertiary hospital in Gauteng. The patients completed a self-perceived cognitive impairment (PCI) assessment, and the mini-Montreal Cognitive Assessment (mini-MoCA) as an objective measure of cognition. Correlational analyses were conducted to examine the relationship between self-perceived cognitive problems and performance on the mini-MoCA. Results: The results of the study revealed the presence of both self-perceived cognitive problems and objective cognitive impairments among the study cohort. There was a small non-significant association between self-PCI and the objective measure of cognitive impairment on the mini-MoCA, rs(43) = 0.220, P = 0.147. Notably, only the memory sub-domain showed a significant but moderate positive association with self-PCI, rs(43) = 0.325, P = 0.029. Conclusions: This study offers initial evidence of both subjective and objective cognitive impairment in non-CNS cancer patients before treatment in a resource-constrained setting. While there was a small non-significant association between global objective cognitive impairment and patients’ PCIs, a significant moderate association was revealed between the memory sub-domain and PCI. These results underscore the need for thorough cognitive assessment before treatment, as both the presence of cognitive impairment and patients’ perceptions of it can influence treatment compliance and everyday functioning.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".